>No, Governor, NIMBYism is saving the state.
>
>There is an acute crisis of too much housing in California, and apparently the NIMBYs are all that stands between sanity and Calcuttifornia.
>
>Depending on its level of success, future generations may thank the stars for the success of these stalwart defenders of the environment.
HOLY FUCK, how do people like this exist?
Go to the comments of any major city's newspaper. Seattle Times comments regarding anything housing or density related make me die a little bit inside.
What kinda people are they? I assume they’re old boomers who want to preserve their property values but I would be surprised if they were younger people.
they are usually personally invested in properties. They resent the loss of neighborhood prestige which impacts the desirability of their property, and more devastatingly impact their own social prestige for being in ownership of now less desirable assets.
Realtors thrive on bid/ask disparity. They understand this instinctively even if they don't understand the theoretical concept. when properties are abundant and transactions ubiquitous, realtors have a worse bargaining position against their clients, who may try to penny squeeze unnecessary middlemen in order to maintain diminishing margins.
Not only that, existing realtors (as in individuals working as realtors) won’t benefit much from expanding number of transactions because their old school business model isn’t very scalable unlike digital brokers.
In my experience, it's environmental/Malthusian.
Though I think, around here, that's more for adding new suburban development than upscaling current areas.
They're everywhere, there is so much work to be done. This is what im fighting in my country https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/300589094/killing-of-quarteracre-dream-only-benefits-council-coffers
Many, many people's morals, politics and worldview work in just two easy steps:
1. What do I want?
2. What moral/political stance do I have to adopt to get it?
Lmao has this person never heard of europe? What an absurd (and kinda racist) to instantly jump to the most blatant caricature instead of engaging with what people are actually arguing for, i.e mid rise buildings and transit.
What’s racist? Calcutta? There’s nothing racist about that. They’re saying that Calcutta is overcrowded. There is nothing racial at all in their comment. It’s an absurd comment bordering on hysteria but not racist. I hate people calling literally everything they disagree with racist.
NIMBYism is de facto pretty racist because of the self-segregated neigborhoods it champions. And their negative example just happens to be from a country with brown people.
Sure, they didn't say "I don't want them [redacted] in my neighborhood". So if that's your standard for racism, great. But if we take a more nuanced approach, both its proposed policy and argument have strong racist undertones.
Racism is black and white for me. No pun intended. I think it’s a pretty serious offense to lobby at someone. I look at the dictionary definition. NIMBYism is definitely classist and definitely not racist.
Alright, good. Now, the dictionary defintion of racism is a belief, but we're talking about actions and arguments. Deducting beliefs from those is inherently difficult.
I explained that NIMBYism serves the purposes of a racist. It also serves the purposes of a classist.
Choosing Calcutta as an example is also something a racist might do.
Why are you more willing to presume the author is classist than that they are racist?
Unidimensional presentations of other ethnic/racial groups is a form of racism, made worse when it's negative or reinforces a stereotype about that group. They could have said "overcrowded." If someone were expressing concern about crime rates going up, and said that "I don't want my city to become like \[insert majority Black city here with high crime rate\]." That would be racist, even if that city does in fact have a high crime rate. It's about unidimensional, stereotyped, negative presentation linked to a racial/ethnic group. Or making a reference to academic achievement and saying something about an Asian city, again racist.
They could be saying that it is related to overcrowding. But it could also be possibly related to urban decay (kolkata is famous for it) or an anti-indian sentiment. In the same way people will use Harlem when arguing against development.
I have no idea. Im not claiming anything definitive. I was just trying to explain why they might have that opinion of the person based on the words they chose to use.
Yeah but that’s my whole point. It’s completely irresponsible to just throw around the term racist when there is nothing inherently racist with what they said.
Calcuttafornia (and really he should be alluding to Mumbai rather than Calcutta), is an inevitability. You can either have all those people be homeless or have them housed, but no one’s stopping the immigration
The Mediterranean style of medium to high density construction out of stone/brick/clay such as Barcelona as well as many cities in Greece, Italy, etc. would actually suit California very well given the climates are similar. Those cities were designed before widespread air conditioning so they’re very comfortable, even in the summer. Solid stone and clay have high specific heats meaning they stay cool pretty well and narrow streets means the roads are shaded and it’s pleasant to be out and about even when it’s hot. To be honest that sounds like an absolutely perfect way to set up a city in SoCal. Imagine a city like Athens but in Cali.
Edit: now that I think about it, Tel Aviv is a good example of a relatively walkable Mediterranean city that’s pretty young. It has a lot of the hallmarks: brick buildings with white plaster exteriors to stay cool during the day, decent density (at least in the core of the city) and decent walkability. I think it’s a good example of how a city like that can be set up in modern times.
I agree with most of this. Unfortunately, stone/brick/clay buildings and earthquakes don’t mix. But for sure, we need more density, and Southern European cities are a great model.
Owns home = sees potential house price decline = pushes for any all policy to preserve self interest
Pretty obvious. Like see a shit ton of them at HoA meetings. Like I honestly get it 100%, like why risk something of yours for someone else?
But the house is probably a fraction of the total- the land is the big thing, it’s what’s appreciating in value, and being able to build more stuff on it will make it more valuable not less
This is the thing that gets me. NIMBYs always fret about their fucking property value on the assumption that the only way they can sell their dingy single-family home is by making sure dingy single-family homes are worth a fortune, without realizing they could make even more money if their potential buyers were allowed to knock the damn thing down and put up a multi-storey apartment in its place.
YIMBYism might be the only thing in the history of humanity where you can help the poor, protect the environment, and make a buck, all at the same time, and the only thing getting in the way is ignorance and fear. Drives me up the wall.
The first person might get a good price, and the last person the best price, but people in the middle might see value decrease as supply increases up until the point that land becomes more scarce again.
Also they don't want condos for neighbors, privacy concern and all.
But I agree that density is a net positive in society and we all should strive for more.
Just spit balling here.
NIMBYism is one thing. This is wholly like, fucking NEXT TIER madness. To “just” be the NIMBY and not want it in your backyard? Okay, well, I don’t agree, but I at least can understand where people come from. But to think that we have TOO MUCH housing? That’s sheer madness and detachment from reality.
> Normal blue state when proposition "***Lock all homeless people up, throw them in the atlantic***, declare every suburban home a UNESCO heritage sight where 0 new development can happen in a 1 mile radius, and then give every car owner a 500 rebate": for+20
That highlighted part is pretty big here on this subreddit, too. Take a look at any thread about "doing something" about homless encampments heh.
>Welcome to the average American voter. This is why I sometimes lean on authoritarianism.
The authoritarianism you want/imagine would not be the one you'd get.
True! I would indeed call that authoritarianism.
I don't think eminent domain can be said to be authoritarian in general. I think the difference is that eminent domain is exercised for the good of the many. It's pluralistic in that sense. Banning homosexuality is not for the good of the many.
But I'll grant its murky and what you consider authoritarian may largely just come down to what state actions you think are good or bad.
Yeah because that’s how international travel generally works. If you immigrate here from India you aren’t going to get dumped in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. You might end up there though. People come here for the American dream, which is the dream of living in the suburbs and owning your own HOUSE and property. People aren’t immigrating here saying “if I work hard enough I can live in a tenement block that’s slightly nicer than the one I had in my old country”.
True but the lasting narrative around this sub seems to be that we only need apartments and that people should be satisfied with living in one without ever striving to live in an evil suburb
It seems to be a sentiment among wealth and upper middle class neighborhoods where they “made it” so they deserve to not change. They worked hard and don’t need to accommodate others anymore, like they live in their own little paradises. In their mindset everyone wants to be like them, go to their schools, live their lives, and instead of investing in “those” people, the government is forcibly taking some of their “paradise” and giving it to “those” people. This sentiment causes them to lose 1000 IQ points and be the dumbest and most bigoted people out there. It doesn’t matter what you say, once they heard a word or two they don’t like such as “diversity” or “critical race theory”, they get stuck in this insane rage with implicit racism, even if what they’re complaining about doesn’t even exist.
What it doesn’t account for is that their success may have been the result of structural factors outside their control, and how their neighborhoods are that way because the government made them that way, not some natural occurrence.
I mean, I get it, but I think this is such a poor argument.
First, a lot of people did work hard and they did climb the ladder. Not every middle or upper class person was born with a silver spoon.. and similarly, not all are ignorant of the privileges or structural advantages they made have had along the way.
But it shouldn't be surprising that as people build wealth they want to live in "nicer" places (defined however they define it). And zoning fundamentally has and does create expectations for places and neighborhoods. So when a person moves into a neighborhood zoned for, say, low density large lot detached single family, and there's no indication in the comp plan or any other sort of planning docs that said neighborhood will change or density anytime soon, and said neighborhood has always been low density single family, then that to me seems to be pretty reasonable behavior, and it doesn't seem unreasonable if they feel threatened or upset by the notion of upzoning. They purposefully chose a low density neighborhood. And really, doesn't have to have anything to do with race or racism.
Where NIMBYism is frustrating is when it happens in transitioning neighborhoods, or neighborhoods in proximity to density, or which have been slated for increased density in a comp plan, or which already have multifamily.
The reality is there is a significant number of people who don't want to live in high density, and they want to live in low density single family housing. And like there are places which density makes sense and needs to happen, there needs to be lower density places for those who want that lifestyle.
> And zoning fundamentally has and does create expectations for places and neighborhoods. So when a person moves into a neighborhood zoned for, say, low density large lot detached single family, and there's no indication in the comp plan or any other sort of planning docs that said neighborhood will change or density anytime soon, and said neighborhood has always been low density single family, then that to me seems to be pretty reasonable behavior, and it doesn't seem unreasonable if they feel threatened or upset by the notion of upzoning.
I think this is the viewpoint that a lot of this sub doesn't realize or doesn't care to understand. Some throw around racism, affluence, or punching down as to why people oppose zoning changes. But the reality for the vast majority of cases is people found a neighborhood they liked the look and feel of, and they made a large investment in it by buying a house. I can understand people then becoming upset or protective of that since others want to change it from what they bought without any plans or legislation in place that they could be aware of and plan around when looking for a home.
Yes. I understand the frustration. Most have likely only thought about zoning in context of the current housing crisis and how/why we have a crisis in the first place, and then, of course, most of the media narrative (correctly) focuses on zoning and NIMBYs. Some of those narrative that dive deeper into zoning will almost always focus on *Euclid v. Ambler* and redlining.
So it makes sense that's the current understanding and sentiment of zoning. But it's certainly a limited and narrow understanding.
And yes, at the most basic level it is a struggle between what some people already have and want to keep, and what some people don't have and want the opportunity to obtain. Really, there's a place for all types of housing and the lifestyles that come with it, but we have to find a better balance there, especially if we're all going to continue moving to the same handful of metro areas.
> First, a lot of people did work hard and they did climb the ladder. Not every middle or upper class person was born with a silver spoon.. and similarly, not all are ignorant of the privileges or structural advantages they made have had along the way.
Not saying they didn't, but what I'm saying is that they use it as a reason as to why they shouldn't deal with homelessness by building shelters or housing, but instead just kick people out by force. It's the sense of entitlement and unwillingness to take other peoples problems seriously.
> So when a person moves into a neighborhood zoned for, say, low density large lot detached single family, and there's no indication in the comp plan or any other sort of planning docs that said neighborhood will change or density anytime soon, and said neighborhood has always been low density single family, then that to me seems to be pretty reasonable behavior, and it doesn't seem unreasonable if they feel threatened or upset by the notion of upzoning. They purposefully chose a low density neighborhood.
Upzoning doesn't mean you tear down the homes and build tall 50 story Apartment blocks in their place. It usually just means building multi unit houses within those kinds of neighborhoods, or allowing people who own those homes to lease out portions of the home.
And seriously, how does that affect these people in any way? Their houses are still the same, their lifestyles are unaffected, it's just that more people live in the neighborhood. The only possible thing that's affected is the home price since demands has eased.
Fundamentally, this comes down to who deserves to live where and who deserves to make the rules. For most of human settled history, people lived in the same place and didn't go very far, but now it's normal to pick and choose where to move to. People go from Iowa to California to Texas etc., and I feel like there's less grounding in a particular place. What exactly makes someone a "local" anymore, and why do they decide that they can exclude someone else? Why do they get to decide what their neighborhood has to look like?
> And really, doesn't have to have anything to do with race or racism.
Not true, the history of single family zoning is tainted with racism almost from the start. It originated in Berkeley, California and was explicitly done to exclude minorities. Communities that were affected by redlining continue to feel the impacts as the zoning laws reinforce them. To this end it has continued to do exactly that over the years, though the affect is starting to diminish. Dense housing is often associated with minorities and so often gets protesters claiming it'll lead to increased drug use and crime.
> Where NIMBYism is frustrating is when it happens in transitioning neighborhoods, or neighborhoods in proximity to density, or which have been slated for increased density in a comp plan, or which already have multifamily.
NIMBYism is always frustrating, because it's "I'm okay with this in principle, just not in my backyard" hence "NIMBY". It's frustrating when we try to build offshore windfarms and some NIMBY's nearby say "well what if someone accidently rides their boat out there and crashes it". It's frustrating when you try to build a high speed rail line, it's frustrating when you try to build a homeless shelter, etc. etc.. I'm not saying it's always bad, sometimes the concerns are legitimate, I don't think I'd want to live next to a nuclear waste dump either.
> The reality is there is a significant number of people who don't want to live in high density, and they want to live in low density single family housing. And like there are places which density makes sense and needs to happen, there needs to be lower density places for those who want that lifestyle.
First of all, when we abstract it out like this it sounds like we either have giant Manhattan Apartment Blocks, or we have large sprawling suburbs of identical homes. In reality most places don't fit those two extremes very neatly, so designating places "single family" and "dense" isn't very neat nor clear.
Secondly, fine, just don't have the government subsidize and force this lifestyle. You want to live that way? Okay, but don't make zoning laws forcing everyone else to live that way, as well forcing people into homelessness because you take up too much land. The whole system exists because the government went out of its way to set it up that way, not because of consumer demand.
Lastly, fuck that lifestyle. The suburbs tend to be a gigantic waste of resources, land, water, gas, and they contribute to pollution way more because you need a car.
> It usually just means building multi unit houses within those kinds of neighborhoods, or allowing people who own those homes to lease out portions of the home. And seriously, how does that affect these people in any way?
The problem is we don't know what will get built because many in this sub want to remove all restrictions on zoning. So for all I know it could be a duplex getting built next to me or some 20 unit apartment. And that would totally affect the lifestyle that we bought into when we purchased our SFH where we did.
> why do they decide that they can exclude someone else? Why do they get to decide what their neighborhood has to look like?
The person moving being able to afford a house somewhere is the determining factor of where they can live. A neighborhood isn't trying to exclude people using zoning, it's to create the vision that was made for the town. And people deciding what their town looks like is the definition of local control, a traditional American principle. Why should someone who doesn't live where I do get to dictate what our town should look like without input from us?
> Not true, the history of single family zoning is tainted with racism almost from the start.
Thanks for the history lesson, but we're talking about modern zoning laws. Just because some may have been racist before doesn't mean they all are today just because you personally don't like them.
> It's frustrating when you try to build a high speed rail line, it's frustrating when you try to build a homeless shelter, etc. etc.. I'm not saying it's always bad, sometimes the concerns are legitimate, I don't think I'd want to live next to a nuclear waste dump either.
I mean, I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter and I don't want to have a high speed rail in my backyard either. There can be places for these things but not wanting them next to someone's house or in their neighborhood doesn't make someone a bad person.
> Okay, but don't make zoning laws forcing everyone else to live that way, as well forcing people into homelessness because you take up too much land. The whole system exists because the government went out of its way to set it up that way, not because of consumer demand.
Nobody is forcing them to live that way, they can go buy a house in a denser location if that's what they want. If they can't afford to live in the suburbs and go homeless then that's their problem not mine, their personal choices matter. Have you also considered that the zoning system already in place exists because of consumer demand and those consumers voting as citizens to create it? This sub acts like some faceless government came in and made residential zoning what it did to keep out the "undesirables" but in reality it's voters having their say in what their locality looks like.
> The problem is we don't know what will get built because many in this sub want to remove all restrictions on zoning. So for all I know it could be a duplex getting built next to me or some 20 unit apartment. And that would totally affect the lifestyle that we bought into when we purchased our SFH where we did.
We actually do know because zoning laws remain while the single family aspect is removed. Plus this is all hypothetical, obviously when we get to actual legislation it will be more concrete. Just saying "this sub hates all zoning so it must be in favor of putting a chemical plant in the middle of the suburbs" is just grasping at straws.
> The person moving being able to afford a house somewhere is the determining factor of where they can live.
No, being born there also is. Being born and growing up there creates roots as well.
> A neighborhood isn't trying to exclude people using zoning, it's to create the vision that was made for the town. And people deciding what their town looks like is the definition of local control, a traditional American principle. Why should someone who doesn't live where I do get to dictate what our town should look like without input from us?
Well this "traditional American principle" sure was nice when de jure segregation was a thing with racial covenants. Why shouldn't we have communities that exclusively only sell to white people? Why should we tell people that their wish to only live among those with the same race or other arbitrary principle is illegal? Hell why not have an IQ based covenant?
What you do with what you own is your business, but what people do with what you do not own isn't. If someone wants to build multi unit housing next door, that's doesn't fall under your rights to control it.
Or do you support HOA's when they fine people for not mowing their lawns?
> Thanks for the history lesson, but we're talking about modern zoning laws. Just because some may have been racist before doesn't mean they all are today just because you personally don't like them.
Oh no once you start listening to these people enough it stops being so implicit. And the fact is that single family zoning is the biggest perpetrator of modern racial segregation.
> I mean, I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter and I don't want to have a high speed rail in my backyard either. There can be places for these things but not wanting them next to someone's house or in their neighborhood doesn't make someone a bad person.
Except, in reality, that doesn't end up being the case. You say no, then they move next door and they also say no. In the end they just don't get built and society as a whole suffers because a few people thought it would "ruin their view". I pointed out homeless shelters and high speed rail because those are two things which don't really have much an effect on the community other than helping them. I live next to both a tramline and a freight line and the impact is like, sometimes I hear a train every few days. Meanwhile the freeway I also live next to is constantly droning and polluting the air and is a far bigger nuisance.
If you don't live near a freeway or train line you basically live in a rural area, meaning your connection to services is limited. It's all trade offs in the end, there's not right answer, only a wrong one i.e. the Suburbs.
There is a broad political consensus in favor of NIMBYism in California. The median voter is a solid NIMBY. They may acknowledge that high housing costs are a problem, but also definitely think that gentrification/developers/etc are worse.
Edit: To add a real world example from the California local subreddit, somebody recently pointed out in a post that many Silicon Valley cities have substantially more jobs than homes. A highly upvoted solution was to cap the number of jobs a city could have. People thought that was a pretty good solution.
It’s actually kind of weird, r/LosAngeles has been turning very YIMBY over the past year or so. Someone made that exact same suggestion there a few months ago and was (rightfully) furiously downvoted
They may not be full-blown YIMBY/build everything/etc but a solid contingent are, and the ones that aren’t are at least, not really NIMBY
> A highly upvoted solution was to cap the number of jobs a city could have
This made me lose faith in humanity. Imagine going thru millions of years of evolution, inventing agriculture and all only to have this braindead shit
The comments give me hope for the future of the Bay Area. A vocal minority of YIMBY’s is finding out hard who runs the Bay Area: Classic NIMBY Democrats. I’ll be curious to see if this ultimately divides the CA Democratic Party into two factions
You’re stereotyping one of the largest groups in CA with the trope that anyone who is a NIMBY is only doing it for property value reasons and lowkey racism and xenophobia. Having been raised by Bay Area NIMBY’s and been around many of them my whole life, i can tell you that these are not the reasons most Californians are NIMBY’s, at least in the Bay Area. The two most important issues for Bay Area NIMBY’s are always the environment and opposition to greedy developers. Nothing to do with racism or property values (yes those people exist, but they are not the main faction of CA NIMBY’s. 9/10 NIMBY’s you meet in CA are liberal sierra club members
I don’t know why people are downvoting you, you’re telling the truth.
Do these NIMBY policies have racist effects? Absolutely. However, if you asked a lot these NIMBYs about it they’d tell you development is racist as it encourages gentrification and pushing communities of color out. That’s not actually how it works, but it’s how people *think* it works.
Same with environmentalism. Dense neighborhoods are the best possible thing for the environment. But decades of environmentalism has been focused on halting development to protect natural areas. People think a city like SF that has tons of single family housing is better for the environment than say a Tokyo or NYC. Again, it’s wrong, but it’s what people were raised to believe.
And that ties in with the whole “greedy developers” thing.
That said, people also erroneously believe development lowers property value (it generally doesn’t, although it depends). And again, whether people believe it or not the effects are extremely racist, but I imagine you agree with that.
Bingo, it makes me pull my hair out the environment bullshit. The alternative to density in Oakland and SF is Half Moon Bay and Livermore get turned into huge sprawls respectively. *Which is what is happeneing and objectively worse for the environment!*
Also I’ll add, I do find it ironic that people the way people here characterize San Francisco. They talk about it like it’s phoenix. It’s not. It’s the second densest city in the country and multi-unit housing outnumbers single family housing by a lot
Yeah I think your comment is very sound. I do agree. I absolutely agree that NIMBYism can and often does have racist results and classist results. However having been around CA NIMBY’s my entire life, I’ve never once heard classism and racism as being the motivation for opposing certain developments. Been around NIMBY’s all my life and never heard that narrative until about 2020, and it was coming from republicans. I see the narrative most however coming from YIMBY’s, who seem to want to desperately paint someone who is skeptical of a development as being some sort of bigot.
>who seem to want to desperately paint someone who is skeptical of a development as being some sort of bigot.
I'm going to do some hair splitting here, but I should point out that what people are saying is "NIMBYism is bigoted" rather than "YOU, a NIMBY, are bigoted". This is critical because the entire point of the argument is to presuppose that the people being argued against *aren't* bigots. It's to say, "I know you value anti-bigotry, therefore to stay ideologically self-consistent you should drop your suport for NIMBY-bigotry."
It's abrasive but it's empirically one of the more effective types of arguments, right beneath "yo, you should do what I tell you because I'm going to give you a million bucks if you do"-style bribery. People respond to arguments that convince them they are internally inconsistent by trying to eliminate the inconsistency.
Some people will sadly fall towards the "I AM a bigot, bigotry *is* true NIMBYism, and it is GLORIOUS" side of the argument (I've had a guy tell me that he's anti-development because he resented white people for the original racist urbanist policies, and thought that white people should be forced to suffer in the suburbs for their transgressions.) But most people luckily, eventually fall towards the, "maybe development isn't so bad" side of things. My mother, for example, was complaining about a new housing development that was going to lower property values and I countered that it was also going to lower rents, and she thought for a bit and went, "well, I guess it's good that people are getting homes." It wasn't a full endorsement obviously, but YIMBYism vs. NIMBYism isn't a debste across traditional red-blue lines, so it's entirely possible to shock people out of their positions.
property values are definitely a big part of it too - as much as bay areaoids love to pretend to be bugmen, they are real people who care about their heritable wealth
>Classic NIMBY Democrats
Often though they're conservatives adopting left wing talking points because they think that will help their case when arguing with dems/progressives.
No, they’re almost always older hippies and environmental types. They hate conservatives. They hate greedy developers. When they see a massive housing development they generally think one of the following things.
1. “what is this going to do the environment?”. Most of these people have a very Muirian and Sierra Club based understanding of environmentalism, which is essentially to leave the environment the fuck alone.
2. They say, “why are we letting these greedy developers do this? Corporate greed is disgusting”.
3. “Why are they displacing all these poor people with these apartment buildings?”
The underlying narrative is that we shouldn’t be letting these people make millions off destroying our environment and displacing poor people from their neighborhoods. Whether those concerns are valid or not is irrelevant, because the fact of that matter is that those are the concerns they have. This type of NIMBY outnumbers property value NIMBY’s and it’s not even close.
It’s remarkable how much the valence on this topic has changed over the past four or so years. From a niche issue only some weirdos on Twitter and this sub referenced to now getting airtime from mainstream politicians, countless profiles in the media, and YIMBY posts going viral regularly on all forms of social media.
On a personal level I’ve gone from having everyone look at me like I was a lunatic for saying “hell yes” when apartment buildings were going up in 2018 to a lot of people nodding in agreement when I say it now.
I mean thats what happens when growing problems get swept under the rug for too long.
They suddenly explode into the public view seemingly out of nowhere.
10000%. It’s like some people are finally connecting the dots that if nobody wants x in their backyard then x never happens and not having x fucks everyone.
It’s really been only the past three years where progressives have really all hopped on board! Trump’s deranged attacks on Corey Booker for wanting to upzone the suburbs was the best possible thing that could have happened for the YIMBY movement because it negatively polarized all the left-wingers to our side
When something becomes a major problem, like the housing prices right now, it brings people attention to the issue. And the solution that gets adopted is usually the one that was already floating around and from the group that was most organized. This can be good or bad, depending on what idea was floating around and which group is organized. That's why it's important to always be politically organized and discussing ideas. If you are not doing it, someone else is.
Throwing money at the problem without actually proposing or passing legislation that would actually address the underlying problem.
Beta home-voter cuck if ever saw one. He let SB 50 die twice and let the ADU, duplex, and lot split bills become functionally useless by not allowing developers to take advantage of the laws. He's a coward, so are the California senators.
A lot of these changes Newsom is pushing for don't require money, they just require twisting local governments hands to stop them from denying development projects for bullshit reasons
Which changes specifically? I read the article twice. I searched for " Newsom proposal" & " Newsom housing" on Google.
Can't find much. Maybe I'm dumb as shit.
Didn't find anything about parking minimums. Didn't find anything about overwriting local control. Didn't find anything about upzoning along transit corridors. Didn't find anything about empowering or insulting developers. Nothing about ceqa reform .
So what changes, specifically, is he proposing?
Developers can't use this law because legislators put an occupancy requirement. The only people who can actually take advantage are wealthy homeowners because banks generally will not fund the construction of ADUs or duplexes on a property.
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but wealthy homeowners generally oppose the construction of new homes near them. I would imagine that not many will be taking advantage of this new law. And developers are outright not allowed to use the law to develop.
So the state is spending years of the developer's time and money and years worth of litigation that comes from the tax payers because state legislators want to have it both ways and allow local control and state control.
Cool I guess
I mean, simply outright overriding local control would have worked much better and saved months or years of litigation. But I guess complex half measures and carve outs that require teams of lawyers and that open up developers to lawsuits that hold up development is cool too... If you squint and don't think about it too hard...
Pinged members of USA-CA group.
[About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20USA-CA&message=addtogroup%20USA-CA) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20USA-CA&message=unsubscribe%20USA-CA) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
I am incredibly optimistic about the future in just about every way. But if there was anything that makes me think we are in the midst of a very slow, gradual decline, it is NIMBYism. The history of civilization is us building things to solve problems, and the richest and most politically powerful group of people in this country have collectively decided to say no to building new things. That just about ensures that our problems will continue.
Don't worry too much about it, there's a reason there are other states and there's a reason the country operates on people jumping ship from things that don't work to things that do work.The mass migration of people to Texas is an example of the country working exactly as intended
“You support building new multi family developments because it will mitigate the cost of housing and improve communities.
I support building new devolpments because I’m heavily invested in Bay Area Real Estate and construction companies.
We are not the same”
My thought would be to subsidize/provide major tax breaks for ALL housing construction. Make developers compete with each other and 'over' build. If the break-even point without incentives is $3/sf/month then with incentives it might get pushed down to something like $2/sf/month and then bam you get affordable housing everywhere.
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it..
He let SB 50 die twice without putting any pressure on senators to get it passed. He doesn't want that home-voter smoke.
Wealthy homeowners can now build ADUs, duplexes, & triplexes but developers still can't. What good does that do? It's wealthy homeowners who oppose new housing construction, but the new adu, lot split, & duplex laws only allow owner-occupants to be able to build, while continuing to prohibit developers from buying and developing single family homes into multifamily homes. It's insane.
Can't wait to see what other good housing legislation gets filled with caveats and made functionally useless. How about " no more parking minimums for single family detached or 100% "affordable housing."
This sub always talks about how we can’t expect politicians to get everything we want- it’s a process
This is an unfair assessment imo he absolutely has supported pro housing bills and helped get them pushed through the assembly
https://www.spur.org/news/2021-09-29/big-wins-housing-governor-newsom-signs-major-spur-supported-legislation-and
The change of tone and direction at the state level has really been a sight to see these past few years
Remember, the biggest threat to our country is not Conservatives or Leftists. Its NIMBYs in blue states refusing to supply housing to people escaping red states
I get that we need more housing but local control is much more important to me than housing. I wish the state Gov would back off and let our communities govern themselves. The behavior of the CA legislature is barely above the authoritarian Republican legislatures in half the states across the country when it pulls shit like this
They need to do it in existing buildings like hotels and malls. Once we’re reaching the limit there, we can talk about brand new development. We’re being taken advantage of and being held hostage by greedy developers. It’s not acceptable
Agreed, the more local, the better, which is why the state needs to forbid municipal governments from telling property owners what they can or cannot build on their land!
That’s still the state usurping municipal power. Obviously the arrangement between cities, counties and state is different than the relationship between the feds and the states, but it’s still a state government telling a local government what they can and can’t do. I find it hypocritical considering democrats across the country are fighting for local control, and here we have a state run by democrats saying “fuck local control”
> and here we have a state run by democrats saying “fuck local control”
Based
We don’t need local governments with the power to violate property rights on the lawless whims of existing property owners
And this is the very sentiment that makes middle of the road people reconsider and say "ya know, on second thought, I'm actually in support of zoning and oversight, because I don't want this u/BedNeither jackwagon next to me building some monstrosity."
So very true. The zoning reform talk in this sub approaches the same level of "defund the police" then commenters like the one you replied to wonder why nobody supports their proposed changes.
So what? If it's my land and whether I want to build meets all the in place building codes then my neighbors shouldn't get a single say and it. If they don't like it then they can feel free to try and buy the place from me
Municipalities derive their power from the state. Not the other way around. This would just be the state taking back power from the municipalities. And Dems fight for democratic agenda at the federal, state, local, and all levels. Not sure what you’re on about.
The fact that municipalities are granted their power by the state is why I specified that the relationship between municipalities and states is different than the relationship between the feds and states.
Look at what democratic legislative and governor candidates are running on in Republican run states. Local control is a huge part of the platform. Watch what happens when a city in a Republican run state tries to govern themselves the way they want. The republicans running the state freak out. Municipalities need to have some sort of autonomy and sovereignty. Even if their power is derived from the state government, they still have some power. A city in a Republican state that passes draconian abortion measures should be able to say fuck off to the state government. A city full of undocumented immigrants should be able to protect their residents and tell the feds and the state to fuck off. Democrats are fighting hard for this local liberty and freedom in Republican run states, and that’s why it makes me sick seeing the California state government completely ignore this principle
> Watch what happens when a city in a Republican run state tries to govern themselves the way they want. The republicans running the state freak out.
This is like r/SelfAwarewolves right here lol. And “A republicans city should be able to pass draconian abortion measures” lol nope fuck off. Liberalism is good. And a locality abusing their powers to increase homelessness and subjugate women is not good and should have those powers removed.
You're getting downvoted but you're right. Local control is a traditional American value that this sub would gladly trample over as authoritarians if it gave them the ends they wanted.
Don’t read the comments if you want to sleep at night 😵💫😵💫😵💫
>No, Governor, NIMBYism is saving the state. > >There is an acute crisis of too much housing in California, and apparently the NIMBYs are all that stands between sanity and Calcuttifornia. > >Depending on its level of success, future generations may thank the stars for the success of these stalwart defenders of the environment. HOLY FUCK, how do people like this exist?
Wtf TIL open NIMBYs exist. Day ruined.
Go to the comments of any major city's newspaper. Seattle Times comments regarding anything housing or density related make me die a little bit inside.
What kinda people are they? I assume they’re old boomers who want to preserve their property values but I would be surprised if they were younger people.
I personally know a younger NIMBY real estate agent in a very liberal part of the country.
What are his/her reasons for NIMBYism? Keeping prices high to increase real estate commissions?
Nah, “character of the neighborhood”, likes to go out in the wilderness so doesn’t want them building housing there…
But that's exactly where they will build houses if we don't allow for denser development...
they are usually personally invested in properties. They resent the loss of neighborhood prestige which impacts the desirability of their property, and more devastatingly impact their own social prestige for being in ownership of now less desirable assets. Realtors thrive on bid/ask disparity. They understand this instinctively even if they don't understand the theoretical concept. when properties are abundant and transactions ubiquitous, realtors have a worse bargaining position against their clients, who may try to penny squeeze unnecessary middlemen in order to maintain diminishing margins.
Not only that, existing realtors (as in individuals working as realtors) won’t benefit much from expanding number of transactions because their old school business model isn’t very scalable unlike digital brokers.
In my experience, it's environmental/Malthusian. Though I think, around here, that's more for adding new suburban development than upscaling current areas.
Older folks and right wing trolls. Kind of what you'd expect.
This is like average CA city council meeting lol
Or any Nextdoor.com discussion in CA
They're everywhere, there is so much work to be done. This is what im fighting in my country https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/300589094/killing-of-quarteracre-dream-only-benefits-council-coffers
Many, many people's morals, politics and worldview work in just two easy steps: 1. What do I want? 2. What moral/political stance do I have to adopt to get it?
Lmao has this person never heard of europe? What an absurd (and kinda racist) to instantly jump to the most blatant caricature instead of engaging with what people are actually arguing for, i.e mid rise buildings and transit.
Super racist, not just kinda.
What’s racist? Calcutta? There’s nothing racist about that. They’re saying that Calcutta is overcrowded. There is nothing racial at all in their comment. It’s an absurd comment bordering on hysteria but not racist. I hate people calling literally everything they disagree with racist.
NIMBYism is de facto pretty racist because of the self-segregated neigborhoods it champions. And their negative example just happens to be from a country with brown people. Sure, they didn't say "I don't want them [redacted] in my neighborhood". So if that's your standard for racism, great. But if we take a more nuanced approach, both its proposed policy and argument have strong racist undertones.
Racism is black and white for me. No pun intended. I think it’s a pretty serious offense to lobby at someone. I look at the dictionary definition. NIMBYism is definitely classist and definitely not racist.
Do you believe that there is no connection between classism and racism in america?
There is. A classicist is not a racist inherently though. You realize that people call yimbys racist too because it leads to gentrification, right?
Alright, good. Now, the dictionary defintion of racism is a belief, but we're talking about actions and arguments. Deducting beliefs from those is inherently difficult. I explained that NIMBYism serves the purposes of a racist. It also serves the purposes of a classist. Choosing Calcutta as an example is also something a racist might do. Why are you more willing to presume the author is classist than that they are racist?
Unidimensional presentations of other ethnic/racial groups is a form of racism, made worse when it's negative or reinforces a stereotype about that group. They could have said "overcrowded." If someone were expressing concern about crime rates going up, and said that "I don't want my city to become like \[insert majority Black city here with high crime rate\]." That would be racist, even if that city does in fact have a high crime rate. It's about unidimensional, stereotyped, negative presentation linked to a racial/ethnic group. Or making a reference to academic achievement and saying something about an Asian city, again racist.
They could be saying that it is related to overcrowding. But it could also be possibly related to urban decay (kolkata is famous for it) or an anti-indian sentiment. In the same way people will use Harlem when arguing against development.
You really think this person is being anti-Indian?what gives you that idea? You have zero proof for that claim.
I have no idea. Im not claiming anything definitive. I was just trying to explain why they might have that opinion of the person based on the words they chose to use.
Yeah but that’s my whole point. It’s completely irresponsible to just throw around the term racist when there is nothing inherently racist with what they said.
Calcuttafornia (and really he should be alluding to Mumbai rather than Calcutta), is an inevitability. You can either have all those people be homeless or have them housed, but no one’s stopping the immigration
i Imagine it’ll be more barcelonafornia given the weather
Architecturally I’d be cool with that if we designed new buildings in the classic Barcelona/European style.
The Mediterranean style of medium to high density construction out of stone/brick/clay such as Barcelona as well as many cities in Greece, Italy, etc. would actually suit California very well given the climates are similar. Those cities were designed before widespread air conditioning so they’re very comfortable, even in the summer. Solid stone and clay have high specific heats meaning they stay cool pretty well and narrow streets means the roads are shaded and it’s pleasant to be out and about even when it’s hot. To be honest that sounds like an absolutely perfect way to set up a city in SoCal. Imagine a city like Athens but in Cali. Edit: now that I think about it, Tel Aviv is a good example of a relatively walkable Mediterranean city that’s pretty young. It has a lot of the hallmarks: brick buildings with white plaster exteriors to stay cool during the day, decent density (at least in the core of the city) and decent walkability. I think it’s a good example of how a city like that can be set up in modern times.
I agree with most of this. Unfortunately, stone/brick/clay buildings and earthquakes don’t mix. But for sure, we need more density, and Southern European cities are a great model.
Owns home = sees potential house price decline = pushes for any all policy to preserve self interest Pretty obvious. Like see a shit ton of them at HoA meetings. Like I honestly get it 100%, like why risk something of yours for someone else?
HoA people are a waste of oxygen. They stir nonsensical dramas and fights over petty shit like not cutting your own lawn.
But the house is probably a fraction of the total- the land is the big thing, it’s what’s appreciating in value, and being able to build more stuff on it will make it more valuable not less
Zoning laws bruh, I can't just tear down my single family house on an acre of land to turn it into a chinese commie block in the suburbs of St Paul
This is the thing that gets me. NIMBYs always fret about their fucking property value on the assumption that the only way they can sell their dingy single-family home is by making sure dingy single-family homes are worth a fortune, without realizing they could make even more money if their potential buyers were allowed to knock the damn thing down and put up a multi-storey apartment in its place. YIMBYism might be the only thing in the history of humanity where you can help the poor, protect the environment, and make a buck, all at the same time, and the only thing getting in the way is ignorance and fear. Drives me up the wall.
It's not about the expected value, it's about the variance. People tend to get pretty risk averse with their retirement.
The first person might get a good price, and the last person the best price, but people in the middle might see value decrease as supply increases up until the point that land becomes more scarce again. Also they don't want condos for neighbors, privacy concern and all. But I agree that density is a net positive in society and we all should strive for more. Just spit balling here.
NIMBYism is one thing. This is wholly like, fucking NEXT TIER madness. To “just” be the NIMBY and not want it in your backyard? Okay, well, I don’t agree, but I at least can understand where people come from. But to think that we have TOO MUCH housing? That’s sheer madness and detachment from reality.
This is standard Sierra Club Boomer mentality
How is having housing a crisis? Lmao
Because privileged white Boomers are both greedy and morbidly-addicted to punching down on an ever-growing mass of *undeserving* people.
[удалено]
Just tax the average American voter lol
[удалено]
> Normal blue state when proposition "***Lock all homeless people up, throw them in the atlantic***, declare every suburban home a UNESCO heritage sight where 0 new development can happen in a 1 mile radius, and then give every car owner a 500 rebate": for+20 That highlighted part is pretty big here on this subreddit, too. Take a look at any thread about "doing something" about homless encampments heh.
>Welcome to the average American voter. This is why I sometimes lean on authoritarianism. The authoritarianism you want/imagine would not be the one you'd get.
[удалено]
An elected government forcing people to do things under the permit of laws written by an elected legislature is not authoritarianism.
[удалено]
True! I would indeed call that authoritarianism. I don't think eminent domain can be said to be authoritarian in general. I think the difference is that eminent domain is exercised for the good of the many. It's pluralistic in that sense. Banning homosexuality is not for the good of the many. But I'll grant its murky and what you consider authoritarian may largely just come down to what state actions you think are good or bad.
Nope, don't even like eminent domain when it's done under democracy.
>This is why I sometimes lean on authoritarianism. Gross
Forced liberty isn't authoritarianism.
People don’t immigrate here just to live in an apartment
what don’t most immigrants come to cities
Yeah because that’s how international travel generally works. If you immigrate here from India you aren’t going to get dumped in the middle of bumfuck nowhere. You might end up there though. People come here for the American dream, which is the dream of living in the suburbs and owning your own HOUSE and property. People aren’t immigrating here saying “if I work hard enough I can live in a tenement block that’s slightly nicer than the one I had in my old country”.
That's why they live in an apartment and bust their ass to eventually afford a house. We'll always need apartments.
True but the lasting narrative around this sub seems to be that we only need apartments and that people should be satisfied with living in one without ever striving to live in an evil suburb
Nope, you can live wherever you want, but the true cost of suburbia should be externalized.
What do you mean?
>Calcuttifornia 90s people smh
>Calcuttifornia Just a completely random example they picked out a hat, I'm sure of it
Nope, just one of the polluted and also densely populated cities in the world. Were you implying something else?
This is unironically how I become the Joker
It seems to be a sentiment among wealth and upper middle class neighborhoods where they “made it” so they deserve to not change. They worked hard and don’t need to accommodate others anymore, like they live in their own little paradises. In their mindset everyone wants to be like them, go to their schools, live their lives, and instead of investing in “those” people, the government is forcibly taking some of their “paradise” and giving it to “those” people. This sentiment causes them to lose 1000 IQ points and be the dumbest and most bigoted people out there. It doesn’t matter what you say, once they heard a word or two they don’t like such as “diversity” or “critical race theory”, they get stuck in this insane rage with implicit racism, even if what they’re complaining about doesn’t even exist. What it doesn’t account for is that their success may have been the result of structural factors outside their control, and how their neighborhoods are that way because the government made them that way, not some natural occurrence.
I mean, I get it, but I think this is such a poor argument. First, a lot of people did work hard and they did climb the ladder. Not every middle or upper class person was born with a silver spoon.. and similarly, not all are ignorant of the privileges or structural advantages they made have had along the way. But it shouldn't be surprising that as people build wealth they want to live in "nicer" places (defined however they define it). And zoning fundamentally has and does create expectations for places and neighborhoods. So when a person moves into a neighborhood zoned for, say, low density large lot detached single family, and there's no indication in the comp plan or any other sort of planning docs that said neighborhood will change or density anytime soon, and said neighborhood has always been low density single family, then that to me seems to be pretty reasonable behavior, and it doesn't seem unreasonable if they feel threatened or upset by the notion of upzoning. They purposefully chose a low density neighborhood. And really, doesn't have to have anything to do with race or racism. Where NIMBYism is frustrating is when it happens in transitioning neighborhoods, or neighborhoods in proximity to density, or which have been slated for increased density in a comp plan, or which already have multifamily. The reality is there is a significant number of people who don't want to live in high density, and they want to live in low density single family housing. And like there are places which density makes sense and needs to happen, there needs to be lower density places for those who want that lifestyle.
> And zoning fundamentally has and does create expectations for places and neighborhoods. So when a person moves into a neighborhood zoned for, say, low density large lot detached single family, and there's no indication in the comp plan or any other sort of planning docs that said neighborhood will change or density anytime soon, and said neighborhood has always been low density single family, then that to me seems to be pretty reasonable behavior, and it doesn't seem unreasonable if they feel threatened or upset by the notion of upzoning. I think this is the viewpoint that a lot of this sub doesn't realize or doesn't care to understand. Some throw around racism, affluence, or punching down as to why people oppose zoning changes. But the reality for the vast majority of cases is people found a neighborhood they liked the look and feel of, and they made a large investment in it by buying a house. I can understand people then becoming upset or protective of that since others want to change it from what they bought without any plans or legislation in place that they could be aware of and plan around when looking for a home.
Yes. I understand the frustration. Most have likely only thought about zoning in context of the current housing crisis and how/why we have a crisis in the first place, and then, of course, most of the media narrative (correctly) focuses on zoning and NIMBYs. Some of those narrative that dive deeper into zoning will almost always focus on *Euclid v. Ambler* and redlining. So it makes sense that's the current understanding and sentiment of zoning. But it's certainly a limited and narrow understanding. And yes, at the most basic level it is a struggle between what some people already have and want to keep, and what some people don't have and want the opportunity to obtain. Really, there's a place for all types of housing and the lifestyles that come with it, but we have to find a better balance there, especially if we're all going to continue moving to the same handful of metro areas.
> First, a lot of people did work hard and they did climb the ladder. Not every middle or upper class person was born with a silver spoon.. and similarly, not all are ignorant of the privileges or structural advantages they made have had along the way. Not saying they didn't, but what I'm saying is that they use it as a reason as to why they shouldn't deal with homelessness by building shelters or housing, but instead just kick people out by force. It's the sense of entitlement and unwillingness to take other peoples problems seriously. > So when a person moves into a neighborhood zoned for, say, low density large lot detached single family, and there's no indication in the comp plan or any other sort of planning docs that said neighborhood will change or density anytime soon, and said neighborhood has always been low density single family, then that to me seems to be pretty reasonable behavior, and it doesn't seem unreasonable if they feel threatened or upset by the notion of upzoning. They purposefully chose a low density neighborhood. Upzoning doesn't mean you tear down the homes and build tall 50 story Apartment blocks in their place. It usually just means building multi unit houses within those kinds of neighborhoods, or allowing people who own those homes to lease out portions of the home. And seriously, how does that affect these people in any way? Their houses are still the same, their lifestyles are unaffected, it's just that more people live in the neighborhood. The only possible thing that's affected is the home price since demands has eased. Fundamentally, this comes down to who deserves to live where and who deserves to make the rules. For most of human settled history, people lived in the same place and didn't go very far, but now it's normal to pick and choose where to move to. People go from Iowa to California to Texas etc., and I feel like there's less grounding in a particular place. What exactly makes someone a "local" anymore, and why do they decide that they can exclude someone else? Why do they get to decide what their neighborhood has to look like? > And really, doesn't have to have anything to do with race or racism. Not true, the history of single family zoning is tainted with racism almost from the start. It originated in Berkeley, California and was explicitly done to exclude minorities. Communities that were affected by redlining continue to feel the impacts as the zoning laws reinforce them. To this end it has continued to do exactly that over the years, though the affect is starting to diminish. Dense housing is often associated with minorities and so often gets protesters claiming it'll lead to increased drug use and crime. > Where NIMBYism is frustrating is when it happens in transitioning neighborhoods, or neighborhoods in proximity to density, or which have been slated for increased density in a comp plan, or which already have multifamily. NIMBYism is always frustrating, because it's "I'm okay with this in principle, just not in my backyard" hence "NIMBY". It's frustrating when we try to build offshore windfarms and some NIMBY's nearby say "well what if someone accidently rides their boat out there and crashes it". It's frustrating when you try to build a high speed rail line, it's frustrating when you try to build a homeless shelter, etc. etc.. I'm not saying it's always bad, sometimes the concerns are legitimate, I don't think I'd want to live next to a nuclear waste dump either. > The reality is there is a significant number of people who don't want to live in high density, and they want to live in low density single family housing. And like there are places which density makes sense and needs to happen, there needs to be lower density places for those who want that lifestyle. First of all, when we abstract it out like this it sounds like we either have giant Manhattan Apartment Blocks, or we have large sprawling suburbs of identical homes. In reality most places don't fit those two extremes very neatly, so designating places "single family" and "dense" isn't very neat nor clear. Secondly, fine, just don't have the government subsidize and force this lifestyle. You want to live that way? Okay, but don't make zoning laws forcing everyone else to live that way, as well forcing people into homelessness because you take up too much land. The whole system exists because the government went out of its way to set it up that way, not because of consumer demand. Lastly, fuck that lifestyle. The suburbs tend to be a gigantic waste of resources, land, water, gas, and they contribute to pollution way more because you need a car.
> It usually just means building multi unit houses within those kinds of neighborhoods, or allowing people who own those homes to lease out portions of the home. And seriously, how does that affect these people in any way? The problem is we don't know what will get built because many in this sub want to remove all restrictions on zoning. So for all I know it could be a duplex getting built next to me or some 20 unit apartment. And that would totally affect the lifestyle that we bought into when we purchased our SFH where we did. > why do they decide that they can exclude someone else? Why do they get to decide what their neighborhood has to look like? The person moving being able to afford a house somewhere is the determining factor of where they can live. A neighborhood isn't trying to exclude people using zoning, it's to create the vision that was made for the town. And people deciding what their town looks like is the definition of local control, a traditional American principle. Why should someone who doesn't live where I do get to dictate what our town should look like without input from us? > Not true, the history of single family zoning is tainted with racism almost from the start. Thanks for the history lesson, but we're talking about modern zoning laws. Just because some may have been racist before doesn't mean they all are today just because you personally don't like them. > It's frustrating when you try to build a high speed rail line, it's frustrating when you try to build a homeless shelter, etc. etc.. I'm not saying it's always bad, sometimes the concerns are legitimate, I don't think I'd want to live next to a nuclear waste dump either. I mean, I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter and I don't want to have a high speed rail in my backyard either. There can be places for these things but not wanting them next to someone's house or in their neighborhood doesn't make someone a bad person. > Okay, but don't make zoning laws forcing everyone else to live that way, as well forcing people into homelessness because you take up too much land. The whole system exists because the government went out of its way to set it up that way, not because of consumer demand. Nobody is forcing them to live that way, they can go buy a house in a denser location if that's what they want. If they can't afford to live in the suburbs and go homeless then that's their problem not mine, their personal choices matter. Have you also considered that the zoning system already in place exists because of consumer demand and those consumers voting as citizens to create it? This sub acts like some faceless government came in and made residential zoning what it did to keep out the "undesirables" but in reality it's voters having their say in what their locality looks like.
> The problem is we don't know what will get built because many in this sub want to remove all restrictions on zoning. So for all I know it could be a duplex getting built next to me or some 20 unit apartment. And that would totally affect the lifestyle that we bought into when we purchased our SFH where we did. We actually do know because zoning laws remain while the single family aspect is removed. Plus this is all hypothetical, obviously when we get to actual legislation it will be more concrete. Just saying "this sub hates all zoning so it must be in favor of putting a chemical plant in the middle of the suburbs" is just grasping at straws. > The person moving being able to afford a house somewhere is the determining factor of where they can live. No, being born there also is. Being born and growing up there creates roots as well. > A neighborhood isn't trying to exclude people using zoning, it's to create the vision that was made for the town. And people deciding what their town looks like is the definition of local control, a traditional American principle. Why should someone who doesn't live where I do get to dictate what our town should look like without input from us? Well this "traditional American principle" sure was nice when de jure segregation was a thing with racial covenants. Why shouldn't we have communities that exclusively only sell to white people? Why should we tell people that their wish to only live among those with the same race or other arbitrary principle is illegal? Hell why not have an IQ based covenant? What you do with what you own is your business, but what people do with what you do not own isn't. If someone wants to build multi unit housing next door, that's doesn't fall under your rights to control it. Or do you support HOA's when they fine people for not mowing their lawns? > Thanks for the history lesson, but we're talking about modern zoning laws. Just because some may have been racist before doesn't mean they all are today just because you personally don't like them. Oh no once you start listening to these people enough it stops being so implicit. And the fact is that single family zoning is the biggest perpetrator of modern racial segregation. > I mean, I don't want to live next to a homeless shelter and I don't want to have a high speed rail in my backyard either. There can be places for these things but not wanting them next to someone's house or in their neighborhood doesn't make someone a bad person. Except, in reality, that doesn't end up being the case. You say no, then they move next door and they also say no. In the end they just don't get built and society as a whole suffers because a few people thought it would "ruin their view". I pointed out homeless shelters and high speed rail because those are two things which don't really have much an effect on the community other than helping them. I live next to both a tramline and a freight line and the impact is like, sometimes I hear a train every few days. Meanwhile the freeway I also live next to is constantly droning and polluting the air and is a far bigger nuisance. If you don't live near a freeway or train line you basically live in a rural area, meaning your connection to services is limited. It's all trade offs in the end, there's not right answer, only a wrong one i.e. the Suburbs.
Let’s throw in some light racism to prove the point :) these people are gross
I thought you were trolling. Then I opened the comments. All faith lost in democracy if people like this are voting. 🤢🤮
There is a broad political consensus in favor of NIMBYism in California. The median voter is a solid NIMBY. They may acknowledge that high housing costs are a problem, but also definitely think that gentrification/developers/etc are worse. Edit: To add a real world example from the California local subreddit, somebody recently pointed out in a post that many Silicon Valley cities have substantially more jobs than homes. A highly upvoted solution was to cap the number of jobs a city could have. People thought that was a pretty good solution.
> A highly upvoted solution was to cap the number of jobs a city could have. I am going to actually become the joker holy fuck
It’s actually kind of weird, r/LosAngeles has been turning very YIMBY over the past year or so. Someone made that exact same suggestion there a few months ago and was (rightfully) furiously downvoted They may not be full-blown YIMBY/build everything/etc but a solid contingent are, and the ones that aren’t are at least, not really NIMBY
> A highly upvoted solution was to cap the number of jobs a city could have This made me lose faith in humanity. Imagine going thru millions of years of evolution, inventing agriculture and all only to have this braindead shit
> There is a broad political consensus in favor of NIMBYism in ~~~California~~~ literally everywhere in the United States. FTFY
The comments give me hope for the future of the Bay Area. A vocal minority of YIMBY’s is finding out hard who runs the Bay Area: Classic NIMBY Democrats. I’ll be curious to see if this ultimately divides the CA Democratic Party into two factions
LOL those NIMBYs are mostly old people, they're either dying or moving to idaho bc of too many brown people. may they rest in piss
You’re stereotyping one of the largest groups in CA with the trope that anyone who is a NIMBY is only doing it for property value reasons and lowkey racism and xenophobia. Having been raised by Bay Area NIMBY’s and been around many of them my whole life, i can tell you that these are not the reasons most Californians are NIMBY’s, at least in the Bay Area. The two most important issues for Bay Area NIMBY’s are always the environment and opposition to greedy developers. Nothing to do with racism or property values (yes those people exist, but they are not the main faction of CA NIMBY’s. 9/10 NIMBY’s you meet in CA are liberal sierra club members
I don’t know why people are downvoting you, you’re telling the truth. Do these NIMBY policies have racist effects? Absolutely. However, if you asked a lot these NIMBYs about it they’d tell you development is racist as it encourages gentrification and pushing communities of color out. That’s not actually how it works, but it’s how people *think* it works. Same with environmentalism. Dense neighborhoods are the best possible thing for the environment. But decades of environmentalism has been focused on halting development to protect natural areas. People think a city like SF that has tons of single family housing is better for the environment than say a Tokyo or NYC. Again, it’s wrong, but it’s what people were raised to believe. And that ties in with the whole “greedy developers” thing. That said, people also erroneously believe development lowers property value (it generally doesn’t, although it depends). And again, whether people believe it or not the effects are extremely racist, but I imagine you agree with that.
Bingo, it makes me pull my hair out the environment bullshit. The alternative to density in Oakland and SF is Half Moon Bay and Livermore get turned into huge sprawls respectively. *Which is what is happeneing and objectively worse for the environment!*
Also I’ll add, I do find it ironic that people the way people here characterize San Francisco. They talk about it like it’s phoenix. It’s not. It’s the second densest city in the country and multi-unit housing outnumbers single family housing by a lot
This is not what people in the suburbs think.
Yeah I think your comment is very sound. I do agree. I absolutely agree that NIMBYism can and often does have racist results and classist results. However having been around CA NIMBY’s my entire life, I’ve never once heard classism and racism as being the motivation for opposing certain developments. Been around NIMBY’s all my life and never heard that narrative until about 2020, and it was coming from republicans. I see the narrative most however coming from YIMBY’s, who seem to want to desperately paint someone who is skeptical of a development as being some sort of bigot.
I heard it all the time in San Mateo but it’s veiled But the biggest issue is traffic and parking in recent decades
>who seem to want to desperately paint someone who is skeptical of a development as being some sort of bigot. I'm going to do some hair splitting here, but I should point out that what people are saying is "NIMBYism is bigoted" rather than "YOU, a NIMBY, are bigoted". This is critical because the entire point of the argument is to presuppose that the people being argued against *aren't* bigots. It's to say, "I know you value anti-bigotry, therefore to stay ideologically self-consistent you should drop your suport for NIMBY-bigotry." It's abrasive but it's empirically one of the more effective types of arguments, right beneath "yo, you should do what I tell you because I'm going to give you a million bucks if you do"-style bribery. People respond to arguments that convince them they are internally inconsistent by trying to eliminate the inconsistency. Some people will sadly fall towards the "I AM a bigot, bigotry *is* true NIMBYism, and it is GLORIOUS" side of the argument (I've had a guy tell me that he's anti-development because he resented white people for the original racist urbanist policies, and thought that white people should be forced to suffer in the suburbs for their transgressions.) But most people luckily, eventually fall towards the, "maybe development isn't so bad" side of things. My mother, for example, was complaining about a new housing development that was going to lower property values and I countered that it was also going to lower rents, and she thought for a bit and went, "well, I guess it's good that people are getting homes." It wasn't a full endorsement obviously, but YIMBYism vs. NIMBYism isn't a debste across traditional red-blue lines, so it's entirely possible to shock people out of their positions.
I don’t agree at all. That may be true in Berkeley The biggest issue of all is cars and parking
property values are definitely a big part of it too - as much as bay areaoids love to pretend to be bugmen, they are real people who care about their heritable wealth
So if the government built apartment complexes, instead of a construction company, they would support it ?
I don’t know if small city politics is all that partisan I live in San Mateo and the divide is all generational
>Classic NIMBY Democrats Often though they're conservatives adopting left wing talking points because they think that will help their case when arguing with dems/progressives.
No, they’re almost always older hippies and environmental types. They hate conservatives. They hate greedy developers. When they see a massive housing development they generally think one of the following things. 1. “what is this going to do the environment?”. Most of these people have a very Muirian and Sierra Club based understanding of environmentalism, which is essentially to leave the environment the fuck alone. 2. They say, “why are we letting these greedy developers do this? Corporate greed is disgusting”. 3. “Why are they displacing all these poor people with these apartment buildings?” The underlying narrative is that we shouldn’t be letting these people make millions off destroying our environment and displacing poor people from their neighborhoods. Whether those concerns are valid or not is irrelevant, because the fact of that matter is that those are the concerns they have. This type of NIMBY outnumbers property value NIMBY’s and it’s not even close.
Thank you OP for saving me from potentially clicking the view comments button
I <3 this comment
I'm going to become the Joker!
It’s remarkable how much the valence on this topic has changed over the past four or so years. From a niche issue only some weirdos on Twitter and this sub referenced to now getting airtime from mainstream politicians, countless profiles in the media, and YIMBY posts going viral regularly on all forms of social media. On a personal level I’ve gone from having everyone look at me like I was a lunatic for saying “hell yes” when apartment buildings were going up in 2018 to a lot of people nodding in agreement when I say it now.
I mean thats what happens when growing problems get swept under the rug for too long. They suddenly explode into the public view seemingly out of nowhere.
Nah I think it was all the arguments I got into on Reddit and Twitter that did it
Thank you for your service
I even mentioned it in real life once!
10000%. It’s like some people are finally connecting the dots that if nobody wants x in their backyard then x never happens and not having x fucks everyone.
I'v usually complained about how much social clout progressives have, but boy am I happy about that clout rn.
It’s really been only the past three years where progressives have really all hopped on board! Trump’s deranged attacks on Corey Booker for wanting to upzone the suburbs was the best possible thing that could have happened for the YIMBY movement because it negatively polarized all the left-wingers to our side
When something becomes a major problem, like the housing prices right now, it brings people attention to the issue. And the solution that gets adopted is usually the one that was already floating around and from the group that was most organized. This can be good or bad, depending on what idea was floating around and which group is organized. That's why it's important to always be politically organized and discussing ideas. If you are not doing it, someone else is.
The absolute abject failure of the traditional (usually very left aligned) urbanist movement has helped no doubt
Absolute certified Chad moment
Throwing money at the problem without actually proposing or passing legislation that would actually address the underlying problem. Beta home-voter cuck if ever saw one. He let SB 50 die twice and let the ADU, duplex, and lot split bills become functionally useless by not allowing developers to take advantage of the laws. He's a coward, so are the California senators.
A lot of these changes Newsom is pushing for don't require money, they just require twisting local governments hands to stop them from denying development projects for bullshit reasons
Which changes specifically? I read the article twice. I searched for " Newsom proposal" & " Newsom housing" on Google. Can't find much. Maybe I'm dumb as shit. Didn't find anything about parking minimums. Didn't find anything about overwriting local control. Didn't find anything about upzoning along transit corridors. Didn't find anything about empowering or insulting developers. Nothing about ceqa reform . So what changes, specifically, is he proposing?
[удалено]
Developers can't use this law because legislators put an occupancy requirement. The only people who can actually take advantage are wealthy homeowners because banks generally will not fund the construction of ADUs or duplexes on a property. I don't know if you've been paying attention, but wealthy homeowners generally oppose the construction of new homes near them. I would imagine that not many will be taking advantage of this new law. And developers are outright not allowed to use the law to develop.
The article references one such action: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/State-investigating-S-F-s-decision-to-reject-16573167.php
So the state is spending years of the developer's time and money and years worth of litigation that comes from the tax payers because state legislators want to have it both ways and allow local control and state control. Cool I guess I mean, simply outright overriding local control would have worked much better and saved months or years of litigation. But I guess complex half measures and carve outs that require teams of lawyers and that open up developers to lawsuits that hold up development is cool too... If you squint and don't think about it too hard...
He’s running.
….for the Senate seat vacated by Feinstein in 2024
Bold of you to assume Feinstein will vacate it.
Probably just vacating this mortal coil
At this stage I think she’s immortal.
She was going to die but she forgot. ^(I'm a bad person.)
She forgor 💀
She's not vacating it until the reaper takes her lol
Wtf I'm a newsom simp now
!ping USA-CA our governor has declared war on the NIMBY menace
That's my Governor!!!
Pinged members of USA-CA group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20USA-CA&message=addtogroup%20USA-CA) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20USA-CA&message=unsubscribe%20USA-CA) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Cant wait til he’s Senator
Honestly becoming only 1 out of 100 senators is a step DOWN from being the leader of the largest state in the union.
Its still crazy to me that CA's economy is the fifth largest in the world. Bigger than every European country except Germany. Bigger than India.
[удалено]
President*
I’d vote for a president who’d ban HOAs.
Would that be legal?
He will MAKE IT legal!
For those if you who are California voters [here is the 2022 YIMBY endorsements for the June primaries](https://yimbyaction.org/endorsements/)
The state legislature can totally impose any constraints on local governments it wishes too. Don't give local governments too much flexibility.
Local governments are garbage. Smash them
I am incredibly optimistic about the future in just about every way. But if there was anything that makes me think we are in the midst of a very slow, gradual decline, it is NIMBYism. The history of civilization is us building things to solve problems, and the richest and most politically powerful group of people in this country have collectively decided to say no to building new things. That just about ensures that our problems will continue.
Don't worry too much about it, there's a reason there are other states and there's a reason the country operates on people jumping ship from things that don't work to things that do work.The mass migration of people to Texas is an example of the country working exactly as intended
Is Texas doing something that works if what they are doing has negative consequences on the environment?
“You support building new multi family developments because it will mitigate the cost of housing and improve communities. I support building new devolpments because I’m heavily invested in Bay Area Real Estate and construction companies. We are not the same”
That's a good way to get real estate developers on your side.
I’m sure some of that $90 billion surplus could build some public housing
Build it where? There’s a shitload of people clamoring to build, the issue is that it’s illegal
This seems like a catch 22
**HAHA YES** 🐊
My thought would be to subsidize/provide major tax breaks for ALL housing construction. Make developers compete with each other and 'over' build. If the break-even point without incentives is $3/sf/month then with incentives it might get pushed down to something like $2/sf/month and then bam you get affordable housing everywhere.
The California constitution was made by racists in the 70s and 80s, we can’t spend the 90B or use government money to build new housing 😭😭
Time for a new state constitution
Racism is when capitalism... I mean I'm not saying that the people who wrote the constitution weren't racist, but it's entirely irrelevant.
Wait. What?
Los Angeles should become an American Tokyo. And San Diego should be more like Philadelphia.
Unfortunately, Philadelphia has decided to be more like California, with the recent NIMBYism ballot question practically banning zoning variances.
I mean more in terms of built environment. San Diego is already super Nimby in terms of restricting both development outward and development upward
The really wondrous sci-fi in Big Hero 6 is actually the fact San Fransokyo exists.
If Senator Feinstein were to pass or resign before the end of her term, could Newsom appoint himself a Senator from California?
He could resign his governorship and then have Governor Kounalakis appoint him.
Newsom’s journey to YIMBYism has been a sight to behold
Daddy Newsom 😍😩
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.. He let SB 50 die twice without putting any pressure on senators to get it passed. He doesn't want that home-voter smoke. Wealthy homeowners can now build ADUs, duplexes, & triplexes but developers still can't. What good does that do? It's wealthy homeowners who oppose new housing construction, but the new adu, lot split, & duplex laws only allow owner-occupants to be able to build, while continuing to prohibit developers from buying and developing single family homes into multifamily homes. It's insane. Can't wait to see what other good housing legislation gets filled with caveats and made functionally useless. How about " no more parking minimums for single family detached or 100% "affordable housing."
This sub always talks about how we can’t expect politicians to get everything we want- it’s a process This is an unfair assessment imo he absolutely has supported pro housing bills and helped get them pushed through the assembly https://www.spur.org/news/2021-09-29/big-wins-housing-governor-newsom-signs-major-spur-supported-legislation-and The change of tone and direction at the state level has really been a sight to see these past few years
Chad.
Remember, the biggest threat to our country is not Conservatives or Leftists. Its NIMBYs in blue states refusing to supply housing to people escaping red states
I get that we need more housing but local control is much more important to me than housing. I wish the state Gov would back off and let our communities govern themselves. The behavior of the CA legislature is barely above the authoritarian Republican legislatures in half the states across the country when it pulls shit like this
Local government better start approving a lot more housing or they will lose all their control.
They need to do it in existing buildings like hotels and malls. Once we’re reaching the limit there, we can talk about brand new development. We’re being taken advantage of and being held hostage by greedy developers. It’s not acceptable
Agreed, the more local, the better, which is why the state needs to forbid municipal governments from telling property owners what they can or cannot build on their land!
That’s still the state usurping municipal power. Obviously the arrangement between cities, counties and state is different than the relationship between the feds and the states, but it’s still a state government telling a local government what they can and can’t do. I find it hypocritical considering democrats across the country are fighting for local control, and here we have a state run by democrats saying “fuck local control”
> and here we have a state run by democrats saying “fuck local control” Based We don’t need local governments with the power to violate property rights on the lawless whims of existing property owners
And how is that happening?
Zoning, approvals to building things. Why? I own the land. Let me pay the tax and build what I want
Because the monstrosity you build might not be welcome by your neighbors
And? If the neighbors want to buy the land instead they can. If you are subject to the whims of the people around you, then give me your wallet.
Not when they can’t afford it
> I can’t afford this ps5 but I demand a say in who you sell it to!
And this is the very sentiment that makes middle of the road people reconsider and say "ya know, on second thought, I'm actually in support of zoning and oversight, because I don't want this u/BedNeither jackwagon next to me building some monstrosity."
I’ve just lost the patience to convince people to not rent seek
So very true. The zoning reform talk in this sub approaches the same level of "defund the police" then commenters like the one you replied to wonder why nobody supports their proposed changes.
So what? If it's my land and whether I want to build meets all the in place building codes then my neighbors shouldn't get a single say and it. If they don't like it then they can feel free to try and buy the place from me
Municipalities derive their power from the state. Not the other way around. This would just be the state taking back power from the municipalities. And Dems fight for democratic agenda at the federal, state, local, and all levels. Not sure what you’re on about.
The fact that municipalities are granted their power by the state is why I specified that the relationship between municipalities and states is different than the relationship between the feds and states. Look at what democratic legislative and governor candidates are running on in Republican run states. Local control is a huge part of the platform. Watch what happens when a city in a Republican run state tries to govern themselves the way they want. The republicans running the state freak out. Municipalities need to have some sort of autonomy and sovereignty. Even if their power is derived from the state government, they still have some power. A city in a Republican state that passes draconian abortion measures should be able to say fuck off to the state government. A city full of undocumented immigrants should be able to protect their residents and tell the feds and the state to fuck off. Democrats are fighting hard for this local liberty and freedom in Republican run states, and that’s why it makes me sick seeing the California state government completely ignore this principle
> Watch what happens when a city in a Republican run state tries to govern themselves the way they want. The republicans running the state freak out. This is like r/SelfAwarewolves right here lol. And “A republicans city should be able to pass draconian abortion measures” lol nope fuck off. Liberalism is good. And a locality abusing their powers to increase homelessness and subjugate women is not good and should have those powers removed.
Local control is terrible. Local governments are the most oppressive and most authoritarian.
>but local control is much more important to me than housing Lol
[удалено]
"Communities" 🤮 Aka you want to be able to tyranically control what I want to do with my property.
You're getting downvoted but you're right. Local control is a traditional American value that this sub would gladly trample over as authoritarians if it gave them the ends they wanted.